From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51129) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WB3TG-00024v-8q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:29:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WB3TB-00012u-Gq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:28:58 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:58152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WB3TB-00012q-9E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:28:53 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q8so380381lbi.0 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 06:28:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1391589562-9010-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <52F1FC8C.8090705@suse.de> <871tzhd9wl.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> From: Peter Maydell Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Revert "nand: Don't inherit from Sysbus" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Peter Crosthwaite , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= , QEMU Developers On 5 February 2014 13:00, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 February 2014 12:24, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> As to why it's complicated for Peter to fix, here's what Peter wrote: >> "That series got very big on me with complications. I think near term >> we just proceed with the revert. Sorry for the delay." I have no >> reason to second-guess him. >> >> Promptly reverting patches that cause regressions when a fix isn't ready >> is standard operating procedure. We can delay a revert a reasonable >> amount of time to deliberate what to do, and perhaps find a fix. We did >> that, and then some: four weeks. We should revert, and try again. >> Neither harm nor shame in that. > > I agree in general here, which is why I'm going to apply this patch. Following conversation on IRC and Andreas' recent patch: given that the current state of affairs (ie 'info qtest crashes') has been in master for six months, there doesn't seem to be a critically urgent need to act immediately, so I'm going to give it a few days to check that we have a consensus on the best way to deal with this. thanks -- PMM